1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, JUNE 2, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 20, Number 17
[ Page 14891 ]
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
Law Clerk: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Prayers.
A. Warnke: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House visitors from Richmond, British Columbia, especially the younger generation, who get exposed to our proceedings today; I hope they learn a lot. They are Joanne Keetley and her sons Aaron and Malcolm, and Carol, Stephen and Cathryn Nattrass. Would the House please make them welcome.
J. Sawicki: I have four guests in the gallery this morning: Art Steinmann, who is the executive director of Alcohol-Drug Education Service, and three members from my constituency -- Sharon Bagshaw, Deanna Cazes and Mary Anne Foreman. They are here today in preparation for the tabling of a petition and a private member's statement later this morning. I would ask the House to make them welcome.
OUR COMPETITIVE ECONOMY
H. Giesbrecht: We need to maintain a strong competitive economy in British Columbia, and in recent years the rules have changed. The free trade agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement have made the free flow of capital across our borders to the south much easier. Market pressures, which we have little if any control over, affect the economy of B.C. British Columbia social programs and wage rates for workers are less protected from the marketplace pressures in other jurisdictions.
There are two fundamental premises which govern pure -- and I emphasize "pure" -- capitalism. One is that there is always a source of free labour, and two, capital should be able to move freely across borders. Labour unions have been instrumental in ensuring that labour is not "free." Over the years they have ensured good wages and workplace protection for their members. As well, they have raised the standard of living for others in the economy. They were successful because governments, under pressure from the electorate, limited the unfettered flow of corporation capital across national borders. Then came the Thatcher and Mulroney political Right, with free trade and North American free trade, and the controls were removed.
Capital can now move freely, and the resulting pressure presents a challenge to governments across the country. The pressure is on our wages -- that is, the costs of production -- our social programs and, in general, our quality of life.
We must be able to sustain our competitive economy; the question is how. There are two approaches, two visions of the future. These two are the subject of much discussion, and they even highlight the difference between political parties in this country. One vision says that to remain competitive we must reduce wages, we must reduce services and the cost of such services, and we must reduce the regulations which protect people, resources and the environment. It also says that we must reduce corporation taxes.
The implications would appear to be obvious to most people: a lower standard of living, from lower wages and lower services. Tax burdens would shift onto average-income populations. The pressure to reduce and to lower would continue. As long as the vision is to stem the flow of capital by continuing the downward spiral to the lowest in wages and services like medicare, and the lowest in corporation taxes, people should be more than a little worried about the future. Selling off resources and profitable Crown corporations only provides short-term relief from the downward trend.
One only has to look at Alberta to see an implementation of this vision and its results. In the last 12 months, the increase in average weekly earnings in B.C. was the highest in the country, well above the national average. In Alberta, under Klein, it was below the national average. They were only ahead of the Maritime provinces, where earnings actually fell. Retail sales are highest in B.C., Ontario and Saskatchewan -- higher than Alberta. Our job creation record is superior by far. In Alberta they're selling off Crown corporations, privatizing medicare and even privatizing tourism.
There is an alternative vision, which adopts the principle that an economy is more productive, efficient and competitive -- and therefore more attractive to investors -- by making affordable investments in the skills of our labour force, in modernizing our infrastructure and in renewing our natural resource base. It recognizes that we can't compete, for example, with Mexican wages or their environmental standards. The question, of course, would be: do we even want to? The alternative vision is to invest in our strengths, where our competitive advantages lie, and to work in partnership with business, labour and the community so that B.C. can match the efforts of the highly skilled, highly productive and high-growth economies of western Europe and Japan.
Investing in skills means we have a highly trained, highly competitive workforce. This year we're retraining 30,000 workers. We've created 14,000 new spaces for students in colleges and universities. We've expanded apprenticeship training. We have skills centres throughout the province, and this is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of what's been achieved in the Skills Now program. This different vision and plan means investing in infrastructure and providing transportation and communication links that allow business to operate effectively and efficiently in this province. The plan is to invest in schools, child care centres, housing, transit, ferry services and highways. Billions of dollars have been invested in jobs in infrastructure in the last four years. This alternative plan also invests in our natural resources. Programs like Forest Renewal B.C., the Forest Practices Code and the forest land reserve will help ensure a future in the forest industry.
[10:15]
So there are at least two options, two very different plans for B.C. One sacrifices your wages, your services and your resources, hence the good standard of living that you enjoy. The other protects what we have and invests in those B.C. strengths that will make us competitive in the next century. This government is clearly committed to a plan for B.C. that
[ Page 14892 ]
involves investing for our future. Is it working? I'd give an emphatic yes, but don't take my word for it. Here's what the Canadian Bond Rating Service had to say last week about B.C.'s economy:
"On aggregate the province's economic fundamentals continue to improve, while B.C.'s economic growth in 1995 is expected to be marginally lower than what it was in 1994. At 5.1 percent it remains good. Even with the expected weakenings of the economy in 1996, B.C. is expecting a 4.6 percent growth rate. The province's private and public investment is expected to increase by $1.2 billion (that is, 6.1 percent) in 1995. Its export sector will continue to perform well due to a still lower dollar and higher resource prices, and its unemployment rate is forecast to decline marginally in 1995, from 9.4 percent to 9.1 percent. It should be noted that the province's population-growth rate continues to be above the Canadian average at 2.6 percent."
Deputy Speaker: Member, I'm sorry I must advise you that your time for the statement has expired.
A. Warnke: It is indeed a pleasure to respond to the member. The member puts forward two visions, but when we actually break it down there is really only one vision. There's a lot to support what the hon. member has put forward. The economy does depend on examining the labour force and enhancing the skills in the labour force. Over the decades, especially in this century, Canada has been particularly recognized as having a very highly skilled labour force. What I would hope to see from all government is the maintenance of a highly skilled labour force and, of course, whatever efforts it needs to improve the labour force. I suppose that if there is an anxiety among Canadians, it's a concern that as a new generation comes into the labour force, we hope the new generation has all of the skills that are essential for a very competitive economy. The hon. member is quite correct that we do face in our national economics today a very competitive situation.
But I just want to touch on a few points where I think we might be misled, because it is so easy for some people -- politicians, business and all the rest of it -- to try to identify very simple forces or factors that will supposedly help our situation. When we take a look at some fallacies worth noting, we then have to look at a much different strategy than maybe relying on some of these simple formulas.
I don't have time this morning to go into detail, but I would like to mention some of them. For example, there has been an emphasis that America has dominated the world economy. In fact, that's one fallacy that has gone by the wayside, because now we see a very competitive situation with the European community -- especially Germany -- and with Japan, and we can actually be part of a very competitive situation, depending on how we put our minds to it.
We always focus on the fact that somehow our dollar is in trouble and our currency is in trouble. Yes, it may be in trouble. That doesn't mean to say we can avoid it, but by the same token we have to be very careful that we do not have such an exclusive focus on the value of the dollar that it begins to force us to consider some very extreme options. The currency has to be weighed and analyzed, and I believe that there is a way that we can still protect our Canadian dollar.
In terms of economic growth, we have to be very careful that we do not assume.... I'm a proponent of economic growth, but we can never assume that economic growth automatically reduces poverty. It depends on what kind of strategy we have in place to keep poverty in check. We cannot always assume that it enriches society. America developed tremendously high rates of growth, yet we do see some evidence of extreme poverty in that society and in other economically growth-oriented societies. So it means a strategy on our part.
I'm very optimistic about our future and about how, as Canadians and British Columbians, we approach our future. I believe that we're in a unique situation in the world to comprehend the nature of the competitive economy and move in a direction whereby we can be dynamic in the international community with regard to international trade and in terms of promoting economic growth. That will benefit all generations, it will benefit our society in the future, and it will maintain our quality of life.
H. Giesbrecht: I want to thank the member for his comments. Just to elaborate further on some of my remarks earlier in terms of the B.C. economy, last week the Conference Board of Canada predicted that British Columbia's economic growth, at 3.6 percent, would be second only to that of Ontario, at 3.8 percent, next year. The projection for Alberta is 2.9 percent, well below British Columbia and Ontario. In terms of the vision and the implementation or fulfilment of that vision, it's nice to be able to compare various strategies and see just how effective they are at fulfilling the vision that we probably all share in this province and in this country.
Over the last few years we've been home to Canada's best and strongest-performing economy. Last year alone, the economy grew by 4.3 percent, business incorporations rose by 12 percent, and exports rose by 20 percent. Since January 1991, British Columbia has created 203,000 jobs; that's one new job in every four minutes of every working day. There must be something good to be said about the plan and the strategy that has been adopted by the government.
At the same time, we continue to have the highest credit rating and the lowest per capita debt in the country. We have eliminated the deficit, we've kept spending growth well below the rate of inflation, and our population increases. In fact, the Globe and Mail reported on Monday that B.C. has the second-leanest public sector in the country. It's interesting to note that despite all of the cuts and slashing in Alberta that Klein's frantic budget has caused, Alberta's public sector is the fattest -- a whopping 24 percent above the national average. In terms of strategies, there's something that can be said for that.
Earlier this month Moody's Investors Service reaffirmed our credit rating as the highest in the country. Moody's had the following to say about our economy: "During the last few years, strong revenue growth resulting from economic expansion combined with increasing expenditure restraint have been important factors in the province's successful deficit reduction effort." Just last week, the Canadian Bond Rating Service confirmed B.C.'s AA+ rating, citing the budget surplus and the strong provincial economy as two factors supporting the rating. This is what the Canadian Bond Rating Service had to say about the province's fiscal health:
"B.C. has reduced its deficit in 1995 through higher revenue and lower spending growth. While revenues were better than expected, the province's expenditures were practically on target. Furthermore, despite further federal transfer reductions, the province intends on maintaining surpluses. Given the province's conservative economic financial assumptions, these surpluses are likely to occur."
I suggest that in terms of the vision and the plan the government's plan is working.
[ Page 14893 ]
J. Sawicki: I appreciate the willingness of the Chair and the House to be a little flexible this morning. In the best parliamentary tradition, established since 1669, I beg leave to table a petition of over 500 names urging government to proceed with labelling of alcohol beverage containers, warning of the health risks of alcohol consumption.
(continued)
THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH ARE INCLUSIVE
V. Anderson: I rise this morning to talk about the rights of children and youth and how they are inclusive. What I would like to highlight this morning is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We know the history of the world in which we live -- the children have not had an easy time. Oftentimes they have borne the brunt of family unrest, community unrest and national unrest. And the children who are unable to defend themselves have taken the hardest hit over the generations. The children have been in slave situations -- and in working situations, and they still are, in many countries of the world.
We have taken a great deal of pride in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but most of these rights have come to the adult community. They don't necessarily come to the children of our community. So the nations of the world came together after many years of discussion, and on November 20, 1989, they passed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. That convention was endorsed by Canada, and we are also responsible for the convention in our activities here in this province and in this Legislature.
I would like to suggest that when we talk about our rights and freedoms, we must also talk about our responsibilities. It seems to me that it is the responsibility of every adult within our community to be responsible for the rights of children and to ensure that these are upheld and maintained. It's also useful to remind ourselves, when we look at the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, that this is a multicultural document. This is a document that has been brought together by the nations of the world, reflecting different cultures and backgrounds. But interestingly enough, they reflect a common concern for children in whatever culture or country or religious background children may be found to be living.
I'd like to share some of the articles of this convention, because I think it's extremely important that we become aware of them as a background for the legislation and for the activities we engage in. Whatever the legislation we're involved in here -- whether it's in social services, education, health, forestry or mining -- the implication and the results of that legislation fall primarily in the long run upon our children, and they dictate not only their future possibilities but their present possibilities. In the preamble to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it states thus:
"The states party to the present convention,
"Considering that in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world...
"Recalling that, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance..."
I stress that part of it: "...childhood is entitled to special care and assistance."
[10:30]
Oftentimes it is the children who have been overlooked. In marriage or family breakups, it's often the adults' rights that are taken into account, and the children's are overlooked. We want to stress that there is a responsibility, that children are entitled to special care and assistance, and as adults combined, that is our responsibility. The preamble goes on:
"Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,
"Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding...
"Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20 of November 1959, 'the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth'...."
There are some 50 articles in this convention. That's too many for us to deal with this morning, but I would highlight some of them, because they set, I believe, the basis of an ethical foundation by which we can judge each and every piece of legislation that comes before this Legislature, and each and every action which we engage in within our community for the purpose of this convention.
B. Copping: I'm very pleased to respond to the thoughtful and caring words from the member for Vancouver-Langara. This government certainly does support the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Through the Ministry of Social Services we are developing curriculum materials to enhance the knowledge of teachers, social workers and children on Canada's international obligations regarding the rights of the child.
The member mentioned that this was a multicultural document, and that is so. We're very pleased that this government brought in the first multicultural act in B.C. It is very easy to put words on paper, but one must scrutinize and look at the actions of the government and the implementation of those actions, as the member has said. I'm very pleased that our government has a plan and that we believe that we must invest in people, in natural resources and in infrastructure. This, when you look at it, is really for our children and for our children's children and future generations.
We say that without investing in people, we will have erosion of medicare, social services and education. This is why this government has chosen to increase money in those budgets every year that we have been in power. We believe that affordable and accessible child care is a right that benefits both the parents and children -- and all of society. So we have invested $32 million to create 7,500 new child care spaces. We believe that education is a right, so we have invested $1.4 billion to build 35,000 new spaces in elementary and secondary education. This includes $230 million this year in capital investment. All these benefits help the children.
[ Page 14894 ]
Also, what do children need? They need shelter, food, education and a clean environment. We must protect our natural resources for future generations. We must create parks; we must prevent mining in some of those parks where it is not applicable.
We believe that our Skills Now initiative is absolutely essential to helping the youth of today by creating post-secondary education spaces but also by moving less fortunate youths off welfare and onto payrolls. Yes, actions speak louder than words. I think that when you look at the Water Protection Act that was discussed yesterday.... All these things ultimately benefit our children, and we must always be very aware of this.
I'm very pleased that last year this government -- this Legislature, in fact -- passed the Child, Family and Community Service Act. The act is in the process being implemented, and it sets out in legislation the rights of children in care, as well as the rights of children to be free from abuse. Accompanying this act was the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act, which created the position of an advocate for B.C. children. Children who feel they are at risk of abuse or neglect now have an officer of the Legislature to turn to for help.
These are all things that we have to be proud of. There is much, much more to be done, but we must have a plan; we must stick to that plan. We must do it for the people of B.C., and certainly for our children.
V. Anderson: I thank my hon. colleague for her remarks, and I appreciate the interest that has been shown there.
Article 3 of the convention says: "In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." I reiterate: "...the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." But when we look at how we are doing, I note that Statistics Canada shows that Canada's most impoverished group is our children. The National Council of Welfare recently reported that 20.8 percent of children in Canada are living in poverty. Even more discouraging is the fact that while the total number of children has remained constant since 1980, the number of impoverished children has risen 44 percent in that same period. In our time of prosperity, the number of children in poverty has risen 44 percent. In British Columbia there are over 46,000 children living in poverty.
I simply say that in order to confirm and be in touch with the convention, and to make it a reality, we have a long way to go before our legislation and actions are really found to be in the best interests of the child, and of the children in our country and in our province, so that they do not have to live in poverty. Perhaps that's one good test of how well we are doing and how well we are fulfilling the mandate of this convention to which we are committed: when we see that poverty among children has been eradicated, we will have come a long way. Until then, we must watch our every action and commit ourselves even more steadfastly than we have done in the past to this aim. May we all remind ourselves that no matter what we are doing, it is the best interests of the children of this province, of this country and of this world that we must keep in mind.
B. Jones: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
B. Jones: It's my pleasure to introduce a young man who is in Victoria this weekend to attend the annual general meeting of the ex-MLAs' association. I'm sure that's an organization that current members have no need of knowledge of, at least for some time. This gentleman gives great hope to the expression that there is life after politics, having served this province long and well as the NDP MLA for Mackenzie between 1952 and 1966. Members opposite might have need of a book he wrote a few years back, though. It's entitled How to Win an Election. Tony just told me of an interesting anecdote -- that when they took up the old blue carpet, Ned DeBeck asked Mr. Gargrave if he would like a piece of it. I understand that that carpet still graces his kitchen to this day, although it's somewhat tattered and old. Would the House please make Tony Gargrave very welcome.
MUNICIPAL INSURANCE
L. Fox: Today I rise to talk about municipal insurance, an issue of serious concern to all municipalities. In the mid-eighties, when I was on the executive of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, when the municipal liability insurance scheme was first established, at that time municipalities were facing an insurance crisis with drastically increasing premiums and deductibles from the private insurance companies. In fact, the number of carriers of municipal liability dropped to two. A survey done by the UBCM in 1985-86 revealed that liability insurance premiums for municipalities had increased anywhere from three to six times every year, and the deductibles were up by five and ten times annually. Moreover, major liability exposures were no longer being covered by the insurance companies at the time. Municipalities and municipal taxpayers were risking a major financial burden. Clearly a solution was necessary.
In order to address this solution, the UBCM created the Municipal Insurance Association, or MIA, as it is otherwise known, in December 1987. The objective of the MIA was "to contribute to the safe, stable and efficient operations of British Columbia's local governments." Specifically, the MIA was made up of 85 percent of B.C. local governments, or 151 municipalities and regional districts, who agreed to join together in a self-insurance pooling program where members share liability losses. The Municipal Insurance Association was able to provide insurance protection for municipalities at a much better rate and with broader coverage than was available through the existing carriers in the private sector.
However, recently a serious problem has emerged with increased claims for municipal liability for damages resulting from contravention of building bylaws. Currently, only the city of Vancouver, under the Vancouver Charter, is immune from liabilities arising in its building bylaws. Local governments, through the Municipal Insurance Association, have repeatedly asked successive governments for the same protection from liability that the city of Vancouver enjoys. There is no reason that this protection should not apply to all local governments.
Although the MIA has met with the current minister of Municipal Affairs and with previous ministers many times over the past years, the ministers have confirmed that the governments, and particularly this government, would not be according the municipalities immunity from that liability. As
[ Page 14895 ]
one of the UBCM board members who helped draft this insurance plan, I wholeheartedly agree with the MIA that all local governments should be permitted legislated protection from building liabilities.
Since 1989, building regulation claims have nearly doubled, while other claims are decreasing. The cost of these building regulation claims are truly out of control. To illustrate, building liability costs were $3.3 million in the fiscal year 1994. That is much higher than the $700,000 it cost in 1990, just four years earlier.
The manner in which the current liability scheme is structured makes local governments liable for all construction within the municipality, with no time limitation whatsoever. Since local governments have the role of inspecting property, they are held liable for damages to insured parties when building structures fail. Unfortunately, municipal governments are left holding the bag for various developers, builders, subtrades and design professionals who either have moved shop or are no longer in business. Moreover, claimants are more likely to make larger claims, with the knowledge that government in general is liable at some level.
[10:45]
I believe that all levels of government have a responsibility to be accountable to the taxpayers and the citizens that they represent. In the end, taxpayers are picking up the costs for these building claims, not some monolithic government. The legislation extended to Vancouver was necessary and reasonable, and all British Columbia municipalities and regional districts should have the same protection from this deep-pocket form of liability. All members of the House should be asking ourselves: are we being fair to local taxpayers with this existing legislation? That should be the key question. I personally believe that we're not being fair to or protecting our local taxpayers.
M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to respond to the hon. member's statement, because he raises a very important issue. I was on the council in Port Coquitlam during the mid-to late eighties, when this issue was very much at the forefront. I realize the tremendous pressure that municipalities came under during that time, when courts were awarding these large, just outrageous, settlements. The Brampton case, with a $10 million settlement, is one that comes to mind. It really triggered the crisis in liability insurance for municipalities at that time.
One of the best things that happened was that the municipalities came together in the MIA. I remember the debates that took place at that time. There was some lobbying from those who said that this could not be done, it was a bad and risky thing to do and it wouldn't work. But the municipalities stuck together, and they came up with a system that has worked, by and large. I think it has been extremely successful and has managed to reduce claims over the years.
I found at the time that what was happening was that liability was being used as an excuse not to do a lot of the things that communities could otherwise do: "We can't do this particular street, or we shouldn't be doing this particular park improvement, because of liability problems." The introduction of the MIA helped to do away with that type of problem.
The member raises a very interesting point, and it's one that I agree with and fully support -- that is, this concept that municipalities should not be held liable for the building mistakes of builders. They should be able to have the same protection that the city of Vancouver currently enjoys. I want to say that we as a government have to work to achieve that. I thank the member for raising that issue, and I look forward to working with him. In fact, it's extremely important that we let municipalities know that we don't see it as being in their best interests to have to pick up excess liability. Clearly, if this is the fastest area of growth in claims, and other claims are coming down, I would like to work to ensure that we can correct that problem. After all, if it's good enough for the city of Vancouver, there's no reason why it shouldn't be good enough for any other community in this province.
So I look forward to listening to the rest of the member's statement. I want him to know that I agree with him that building regulation claims are an increasing burden for too many of our municipalities, particularly those municipalities such as the ones I represent, Port Coquitlam and the city of Coquitlam, where we've experienced tremendous growth over the last number of years. In the last five years, for example, we've been growing at a rate of almost 6 percent a year, and we've added over 1,200 homes a year. That's a huge increase and it strains resources. We have trained professionals who are doing their jobs, and they're covered under errors and omissions, but they shouldn't have to be subject to any extra liabilities. So I think this is an important issue that we need to take a look at.
I think one area where we could start is putting in a time limit so that any liability has to be dealt with in a very specific time limit and not be allowed to drag on. Municipalities are under a lot of pressures as it is. If we can make changes to legislation that can make things easier, and if we can bring it into line with what the largest municipality in the province already operates under without too much problem, I think we should do that. I encourage the member to pursue this, because I certainly will pursue it with him. I would hope that other parties would be willing to support us, but we'll have to wait and see.
L. Fox: I want to thank the member for Port Coquitlam for his comments. Also, I would like to recognize that the mayor he served under, Len Traboulay, was president of the UBCM at the time this initiative came forward, and he was a very, very important part of the policy direction that came out of the UBCM in that day. I have the greatest respect for Mr. Traboulay and the contribution he made to the municipalities in British Columbia.
A couple of observations I would like to make in the last few moments. First, I think there should be a recognition that building inspectors in small communities typically are retired contractors or individuals who have done some buildings and who know how to interpret the code, and their primary function is to be sure that the code is followed. Also, the only inspection they're part of is residential inspection. In most communities in the province -- particularly small communities -- commercial, public or industrial buildings are not inspected by the local building inspector, yet the municipality still carries the liability should that building collapse. That's one of the unfortunate parts of this whole problem.
The other thing we have to recognize is that municipalities have exercised risk management very well over the course of the last ten years. They've been able to reduce other forms of liabilities through good, sound initiatives of risk
[ Page 14896 ]
management. I look forward to the Minister of Municipal Affairs bringing forth legislation that would limit, if not do away with, the dramatic costs to municipalities caused by the deep-pocket syndrome. Lawyers as well as everyone else will name municipalities, but municipalities that are stable and appear to have deep pockets generally are the ones in the end that pay the price, and statistics prove that. I think we owe it to the municipal taxpayers and the municipal leaders to give serious consideration to these concerns. I'm extremely pleased that the member for Port Coquitlam is prepared to work with myself and others in order to try to bring this to fruition.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. J. Smallwood: They say in politics that timing is everything, and as I waited for the last speaker to conclude his statement, I noticed that our guests were leaving the gallery. For the record, I would like the House to join me in welcoming Riverdale Elementary School and their guests from Montreal. It's a group of grades 4 and 5 students. Having that on the record in Hansard, we'll make a point of sending it to the school and the students so they will know that this House recognized their presence and welcomed them here.
AWARENESS AND PRENATAL HEALTH
J. Sawicki: Shortly after I was elected in 1991 I started receiving letters and phone calls from a constituent of mine, Joy Gilmore. They were very eloquent and passionate letters and telephone calls about the hundreds of children born each year in British Columbia with fetal alcohol syndrome and its related affliction, fetal alcohol effects. It's a condition that affects a person for their entire lifetime, a condition that costs $1.5 million in health costs in British Columbia during that person's life. And that's not counting the personal trauma for the person born with FAS and their family. It's a condition that is totally preventable, because it has a known and controllable cause: excessive consumption of alcohol during pregnancy. FAS was not even recognized as a syndrome until 1973, but since that time, growing numbers of Canadians -- certainly growing numbers of British Columbians -- have become very concerned about the effects.
Health Canada estimates that two in 1,000 live births in Canada have FAS, and the percentage is as high as 30 or 40 percent in certain segments of our population. FAS is the leading known cause of mental retardation, and there's a host of other symptoms that have now been recognized as part of FAS: heart abnormalities, hearing and speech disorders, joint and limb disorders, poor circulation, hyperactivity and a host of others.
When I asked Joy Gilmore -- I should correct myself; I didn't ask, because she's very forthcoming in advising what we should be doing -- her answer was very simple: we should be labelling alcohol containers. She brought me cigarette packages that have, as we all know, very large labels about the side effects of their use; she brought me cold-remedy packages; and she also went to the effort of going across the line to Port Roberts and bringing me a bottle of U.S. wine, because labelling is already mandatory in the U.S. Even B.C. breweries that export products to the United States must provide a warning label. Joy Gilmore is not alone in her concern.
The Coalition for Warning Labels on Alcohol Containers, some members of which are in the gallery with us this morning, is not alone. That coalition includes people like the Alcohol-Drug Education Service, the B.C. Association of Social Workers, the United Church of Canada, the Kaiser Youth Foundation, the YMCA Crabtree Corner, the B.C. Medical Association, and a host of others. They are dozens and dozens strong.
Nor is FAS the only danger to health caused by alcohol abuse. I want to read you some of the statistics related to alcohol consumption: one in ten deaths in Canada is alcohol-related; 65 percent of child abuse, 50 percent of hospital emergency admissions and 80 percent of murders involve alcohol. Alcohol is a factor in 45 percent of motor vehicle accidents -- think of the cost of those in British Columbia. Ten percent of our Ministry of Health budget and 8 percent of our Social Services budget are related to alcohol abuse. The fact is that alcohol is a drug, and it can become addictive, just like cigarettes. Granted, the majority of people use it responsibly and in moderation, just as we've come to use aspirin or cold remedies. It has taken us a long time to recognize that cigarettes do cause liver disease and emphysema. We have recognized that any drugs, including cold remedies or any other prescription drugs, can have dire side effects if they're used inappropriately or inappropriate combinations.
What have we done with products like cigarettes, cold remedies, cleaning fluids and other toxic products on the market? We have labelled them to warn consumers about the dangers of their use and misuse; but here in Canada we don't label one of the most widely abused drugs, and that's alcohol. We don't warn consumers about the side effects associated with their use. Joy Gilmore, members of the coalition, the more than 500 citizens who have signed the petition I tabled this morning and many others want to know why not.
Why don't we recognize that labelling alcohol containers will acknowledge to consumers that government does recognize the health risk of alcohol use? Why don't we recognize that labels will inform consumers of the risks of use and abuse of alcohol, and that it will help reduce those alcohol-related problems? As part of a comprehensive program of health promotion initiatives, alcohol warning labels will help us prevent alcohol-related diseases such as heart, liver and respiratory problems. It will certainly help us prevent FAS, which inflicts incredible trauma on people and their families for their entire lives. It will help prevent alcohol-related accidents, whether they are vehicle accidents, falls, fires or drowning, and it will help prevent alcohol misuse.
Studies have finally convinced us that labelling of tobacco products has been a very effective measure in reducing smoking in the past decades. Several studies have indicated that labels are an effective way to inform and educate consumers on health risks, especially when they are part of a comprehensive program. We are not starting from square one.
I see that my time has expired for this section, and I'll save the rest of my comments until my reply.
[11:00]
L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise in response to the member for Burnaby-Willingdon on an extremely important subject, that of prenatal health. There are major developmental changes in a woman's life cycle, and pregnancy is one of them. There are enormous physical and emotional changes
[ Page 14897 ]
during this time. For some women, pregnancy is a positive affirmation of their sexuality and womanhood, and for others, it represents a questioning of their self-worth.
One of the major concerns for an expectant mother is, as the member has referred to, the well-being of her unborn child. I note that the petition tabled this morning is, I would suspect, in response to a longstanding promise of the member's party to implement warning labels on alcohol products. I'm sure that the organizations represented here today are very pleased to see this petition tabled and to hear the member's remarks.
We have warnings of the dangers of smoking on cigarette packages, and I would suggest that the persistent education and awareness programs around the dangers to your health from smoking have been most effective as well. Perhaps that's something we should look at when we talk about fetal alcohol syndrome. The nutritional needs of expectant mothers is extremely important -- making sure that their diets are rich in protein, iron, calcium and folic acid. These are all important to the development of babies. It is also important that mothers visit their doctors early in order to identify potential difficulties and to take advantage of prenatal care by a physician, and that they attend the follow-up of postnatal visits.
Every healthy baby that results from a program will put another $60,000 in the bank: this is the estimated average health care bill of underweight babies. Poorly nourished women and those entering pregnancy underweight or failing to gain adequate weight during pregnancy are at increased risk of having a low-birth-weight baby.
The member talked about smoking, and smoking and secondhand smoke has been shown to decrease birth weight and increase the risks of serious illness. I have no difficulty in supporting the added emphasis we need to place on reaching young people -- particularly young women -- about the dangers of smoking and what that could mean to their unborn children. The earlier a woman gives up smoking, the greater a reduction in risk she has.
But by far the most destructive risk is the use of alcohol and drugs. A woman who drinks alcohol during her pregnancy exposes her unborn child to the risk of fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects, and increasingly we are finding in our schools the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome. Children with FAS have very poor pre- and postnatal growth, characteristic facial features, and mild to moderate mental handicaps and other developmental delays. And the sad truth is that these cases of FAS and FAE children are entirely preventable. There is no known safe level of alcohol use in pregnancy; it's just not there. Brain development occurs throughout gestation, and the central nervous system of the child is susceptible to alcohol throughout its development. A woman is considered at risk if she engages in binge drinking, has previously had an FAS or FAE infant, or uses prescription or street drugs. Many people think that prescription drugs are okay, but there's increasing evidence to prove that prescription drugs can be just as hazardous to your health as street drugs.
But fetal alcohol syndrome is the most common but most totally preventable cause of mental handicaps. In many communities in British Columbia, it's estimated that FAS likely affects 25 percent of children, in areas of high unemployment, poverty and alcoholism. In the words of Nicole Parton: "Each year in Canada 400 infants are born with a host of mental and physical defects that can't be kissed away, wished away, prayed away or played away." Fetal alcohol syndrome is North America's leading cause of mental retardation. It is an incurable, lifetime sentence that carries a lifetime care cost. A further 400 infants are born each year with fetal alcohol effects, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorders, inexplicably deviant behaviour, and it is these children whose mothers are most often moderate drinkers.
I thank you, hon. Speaker. I would just like to say that I do support the member for Burnaby-Willingdon in her efforts on behalf of FAS and FAE children.
J. Sawicki: I would like to thank the member for Langley for her comments. I agree with everything that she has said, and it is good to know that on an issue like this, this House can speak with one voice.
I am very proud that on this and many other health issues our government has taken a leadership role in terms of protecting medicare, changing our health care system and putting more dollars into prevention and wellness. On this issue I have met with the Attorney General, the Minister of Social Services and the Minister of Health, because they are working together to try to deal with this issue of FAS and alcohol abuse, and the role that labelling can play in a comprehensive program. Sometimes on issues like this it falls through the cracks, because different ministries have different responsibilities.
Just recently in British Columbia the Attorney General announced and put into practice the alcohol and pregnancy program at all liquor stores, in terms of posters, brochures and reminders about the dangers of consuming alcohol during pregnancy. The Minister of Social Services, who is here this morning, has been putting dollars into providing services to families and people born with FAS, including training as to what would be appropriate interventions in terms of preventing FAS. Recently -- and I think this is one of the most important initiatives that we have taken -- the Minister of Health, at the recent provincial and territorial Ministers of Health meeting held in Vancouver, reactivated something that began in 1988 but kind of got derailed in the last few years in terms of the federal government taking the initiative to mandate labelling of alcohol containers across Canada.
I want to read just briefly from the letter that has been sent from the Minister of Health, as chair of the provincial and territorial ministers, to the federal Minister of Health urging that the federal government now put in place what they agreed to years ago -- labelling of alcohol beverage containers: "There are three specific reasons why alcohol beverage containers should contain a warning label. The misuse of alcohol is responsible for tremendous health, economic and social costs. Beverage alcohol is the only consumer product known to cause harm when misused that does not alert the consumer.... Consumers...have the right to be provided with information" on products that can negatively affect their health -- I've shortened it a little bit because I know my time is short.
I'm really pleased that I've had the opportunity this morning to bring this issue forward to the House. I would ask all members to join me in raising awareness of FAS and its dangers, and in urging the federal government to mandate labelling of alcohol containers.
L. Krog: I would ask leave to make an introduction.
[ Page 14898 ]
Leave granted.
L. Krog: On behalf of my colleague the member for Surrey-Green Timbers, I wish to advise the House this morning that there are approximately 49 grades 6 and 7 students here from Bonaccord Elementary in Surrey. Accompanying them are their teachers, Ms. Reynolds and Ms. Laidlaw, and several parents. These people had to get up at about 4:30 this morning, so I'd like the House to give them a really warm round of applause in welcome.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply, Section B, to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services.
The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 53: minister's office, $402,165 (continued).
V. Anderson: For the sake of the audience listening, I must advise them that the sum that was just read isn't all of the money that's being spent in our estimates; that's the minister's office. Our discussion includes the total budget of Social Services, which is, of course, far larger than the sum of about $400,000 that has just been read. That's just the way the House operates.
[11:15]
I want to follow up, then, as we did last time, on the financial services division and some of the areas within that division. One of the areas within that division is the financial planning division. I'm wondering about the number of FTEs and the budget of that division.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like to thank the hon. member for asking this question, because before I answer it I want to give recognition to the director of the financial planning division, John Pickering, who is sitting here with me. It is with a great deal of sadness for me, but with joy for Mr. Pickering, that in 15 minutes he will be finished his job. He is retiring after years and years of service, and we'll just take a moment to applaud him for the dedicated service he has provided. [Applause.] So when he walks out of here, he's not giving us a message in any way, other than to say that he's entering into retirement. We wish him absolutely the best. He has been of great assistance to our ministry, and in particular to me, and I thank him for all of his hard work on behalf of the government. So thank you for asking that question, first and foremost.
There are 19 full-time-equivalents in the financial planning division, and in 1994-95 they expended $1.2 million.
V. Anderson: I'm delighted we have that, and I'm glad.... I'm interested that he's here. He came even for 15 minutes this morning; I'm not sure whether that was really his devotion or because the hard taskmaster required him to be here this morning. But I'm glad we have this opportunity to publicly say thank you for the work that is done here, because none of the other things happen unless this division works well. We appreciate that very much, and we wish you well. I hope you will find other more interesting and less burdensome tasks in your retirement.
When we were discussing part of this division -- the personnel and staff training division -- yesterday, we got the number of FTEs, but we didn't get the budget for that particular division.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Last year $6.8 million was spent; we estimate that because of the increased training in light of the new act, it will be about $8 million this year.
V. Anderson: The systems services division is another division within this ministry. I think the minister talked about changes to systems. I'm wondering about the FTEs and the budget, and what is developing in systems services.
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is the division that's responsible for all of our systems and services, and manuals and staff training. It has 65 FTEs, and the budget for last year is estimated to be $2.4 million.
V. Anderson: One of the things the ministry does is oversee a number of statutes. So whether that's a division or not, they're just listed as overseeing the Adoption Act, the Community Resource Board Act, the Family and Child Service Act, the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act, the Human Resource Facility Act, the Social Service Tax Act, the Residence and Responsibility Act and the Ministry of Social Services and Housing Act. What is involved in administering these acts? Are the FTEs separate or are they within the other programs?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is probably a primary example of how the BC Guide doesn't necessarily mesh with the way the ministry is planned. Each act is administered by a particular division, which is listed elsewhere, particularly in our blue book. So we can't determine for you exactly from here what the cost is per act, for instance, because in some circumstances a FAW or a social worker would deliver several programs through that. We'll have to discuss the staffing as we go through other divisions.
V. Anderson: I think the final one in the financial area is the list of ministry regional area and district offices. Is there a special budget for those, or are they within other parts of the divisions? Just for clarity in that regard.
Hon. J. MacPhail: They're listed within the program management areas.
V. Anderson: I'd like to move to the family and children's services division. Again, here we have a whole host of programs. Perhaps one of the things I might ask either now or later -- whichever the minister would prefer -- is: are there new programs that weren't operating at the time of the BC Guide? If so, there might be some indication of that as we go through them now or later on in the discussion.
The first question in regard to family and children's services would be in the area of program management. What FTEs are involved in the area of program management, and what is the budget for program management? I presume this is the administrative function for that total division or area. Perhaps you could explain to us the nature of program man-
[ Page 14899 ]
agement, because in each division there is a category of program management. What's involved in this? How many FTEs are there?
Hon. J. MacPhail: To answer the member's first question about whether there are programs not listed in here that have developed since, yes, and we will update the guide as a new guide is printed. For instance, the child abuse team is a new program that we announced last November, which is working with the Children's Hospital and has a child abuse worker with expertise in each region. Our youth-in-care network is also a new program. Those are just two that I can think of immediately. Yes, there are additions that need to be made to the BC Guide when it is reprinted.
On the question around the family and children's services division, just to clarify again, the program management entries for each of the program areas, not just this one, cover the salaries, benefits and operating costs for both headquarters and field staff dedicated to the programs. In the family and children's services division, there are 63 divisional FTEs who work at headquarters and 1,521 FTEs in the regional operations. The budget is $359.83 million. I'll just point out for the hon. member that the number of FTEs that I indicated to you does include the implementation team of the new act -- that's about 30.6 FTEs.
V. Anderson: Did you say that that number includes the implementation team? Yes. Okay. That's helpful in that regard. That's basically the program management.
When you mention the 1,521 FTEs out in the regional offices, are those persons who are doing management roles, administrative functions? Or are they program people, as we look at programs? What's the distinction between the management...? Are they the secretarial staff, the management staff...? What's the nature of those people and the work they're doing?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Field operations is entirely service delivery people. It's direct-line service delivery -- social workers, child protection workers and clerical staff to support the field offices. It's all service delivery. District supervisors would be there. You might call them management, but they deliver service as well.
V. Anderson: Can you give us a breakdown between those who are classified as social workers and those who are classified as financial aid workers? Then perhaps the main category would be the secretarial or the administrative personnel -- operational, computer, secretarial.
Hon. J. MacPhail: For regional operations, we have 1,099 social workers. Again, that's the range of services for social work delivery. It could include special programs for the mentally handicapped as well as child protection and family support. We have 18 regional financial officers and admin assistants in total. Administrative support in the field is 959 positions.
That's in the family and children's services division; I'm not giving you the....
Interjection.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh, that's total. I'm sorry, that's the entire field staff for support. We don't have it broken down on the basis of just family and children's services division for the admin support.
V. Anderson: Perhaps we can take a moment and look at some of the programs under family support services. If we can go relatively quickly through the guide and deal with the ones that are in it, then perhaps at the end we could pick up the ones that are new, that are not in the guide. Could we do that relatively quickly.
One of the ones that.... Could we just go through them. Advice and assistance to parents: is that a program in and of itself that provides material...? It says it provides material information. Is that an informational program primarily? How many FTEs would be involved in that program?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, the way it would corroborate with what we actually do is that that would be part of a job description for a social worker. Advice and assistance is not a separate program but a duty required of the social workers.
V. Anderson: The community development program is listed as a new program, helping people to change social and economic conditions in their communities. Could you explain what the community development is as a new program and how many are involved in it?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is a new program since our government assumed responsibility. There are approximately 20 social workers in the field throughout the province providing very important work in liaising with community agencies -- community groups -- forming alliances and integrating, and assisting in integrating services. I meet with them, and they are proving to be very effective in doing what I know the hon. member has advocated needs to be done -- that is, to not let people fall through the cracks just because of bureaucratic hiccups. Many of them go beyond their role of.... I shouldn't say it's beyond their role. They take their role with a great deal of concern and have strong relationships with schools, health centres, community centres and youth programs, and they are functioning well throughout the province.
[11:30]
V. Anderson: I appreciate that. Are these people working...? There are similar kinds of community health workers doing community development liaison programming. Is there a cooperation -- a relationship -- between the community health and the social health workers? As I listen to them and learn of some of their experiences, it sounds like they are doing very much the same: talking to the same schools and community groups. Is there a cooperation and a liaison regularly between these two groups?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, absolutely. The community development workers from both the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Services liaise between themselves, but both participate in the child and youth committees in each local area as well.
V. Anderson: The next program listed is the day care support for teen parents. Perhaps the minister could indicate how many FTEs are involved and, if possible, what the budget is for this particular section. Perhaps she could also indicate how many teen parents might be involved in the program.
[ Page 14900 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: The budget for this program is $0.91 million. It is a contracted service, delivered through the community. It varies from community to community, but it is also done, in some cases, through the Ministry of Education. The service is attached to an educational setting. We work with the Ministry of Women's Equality as well.
V. Anderson: How many family advancement workers -- which they say work within the school system -- are there in the system? Could you give us a brief summary of the kind of work that they do?
Hon. J. MacPhail: That is a contracted service delivered through the schools, as it says in here. The budget for it is $0.59 million, and there 170 positions throughout British Columbia.
V. Anderson: Could you indicate to us the nature of the pilot family preservation program, whether there are some results coming back from that, how many people are involved in it and what the budget is for that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There are currently five family preservation programs operating in the province. The ministry staffs programs that are offered in Prince George, Port Moody and Kelowna. Kamloops and Williams Lake offer programs that are contracted out to agencies. An evaluation of the program and its various approaches is currently underway, and when that's completed I'll be most happy to share with you the complete evaluation. But preliminary results indicate a reduction in the number of children taken into care, which of course is the reason why the pilot program was put into place.
Of course, pursuant to the new Child, Family and Community Service Act, the family preservation program will form an integral part of the ministry's family support services. The program actually is included in the overall funding for child protection under child-in-care services. In the 1994-95 budget, the actual cost for the family preservation program was around $450,000.
V. Anderson: There are five projects currently underway. Is the intent to increase the number of projects in this coming year, or are you going with the five current projects? I might just ask, as we're.... I'll pick up the other question later. I just ask whether there's a plan to increase the number of these projects in the current year.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, that's exactly the kind of evaluation we're doing as we prepare for implementation of our new act. Those are the kind of questions that are being asked by us. The answers will determine the expansion of the program, but certainly the early results of the pilot projects are indicating to us that it is absolutely worthy of implementing those principles and that kind of program into the day-to-day work of our own social workers throughout the ministry. It's interesting that we're starting the evaluation of the new act before it's even been proclaimed. It's proving to be a very successful way of approaching implementation -- to actually do evaluation as you implement.
V. Anderson: A question on the evaluation, because it probably would be true: in this evaluation, are you starting out with certain benchmarks and certain goals? And then, is there a value-for-money audit? What is the process of the evaluation in place for this program and presumably for others as well? In other words, is there a new process in place for this?
Hon. J. MacPhail: For the first time ever, we've asked outside agencies, including community agencies and the universities, to set up a research and evaluation project on the implementation of the new act. There's actually a group of people who are participating in the evaluation exercise. I met with them about three weeks ago.
Yes, on one level there's a value-for-money process going on. But just as important, or perhaps even more important -- and I certainly appreciated your comments this morning in the private members' statements -- is the success in relation to children and families. That evaluation will take place on a case-by-case basis.
V. Anderson: The next one is the family resource centre services. Again, what's the nature of that service? How many people are involved? And what is the budget of that service?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The family resource centre services are all contracted services to community agencies. The centres offer a range of services and activities for families living in a defined area, where the centre acts as a base for providing these services. The resource centre services address multiple family needs, using flexible staff roles, local participation, an open-door policy, and identification with neighbourhood issues and concerns. My ministry may assist in the development and maintenance of a family resource centre or provide a specific family support service located in an existing centre. The budget for '93-94 was $0.4 million; in '94-95 it was $0.68 million.
V. Anderson: How many of these services centres are there throughout the province? That's one part of the question, and the other part of the question would be: how are the contracted services evaluated? Against what benchmarks...? What is the program for evaluating contract services? How many are there in this particular one; but also, since we were talking about it, what's the process for evaluating contract services?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, this is the book, the program inventory and evaluation framework, from which our ministry works. I'm sorry that I didn't answer your question on the implementation concerning whether there are benchmarks. The answer to that is yes. They're being established in this collaborative and inclusive way that I described to you.
Under the family resource centre services -- the last year that I can tell you about is 1994 -- there were nine contracts for service. The evaluation is based on achievement of the program objectives. The program objectives are to support the organization, development and maintenance of a family resource centre, and to address the target group. Target groups are defined as communities and neighbourhoods in need of local resource centres that can provide services to meet the specific needs of that area. In all cases the service providers are contracted community agencies or non-profit societies.
Our funding of family resource centre services will greatly benefit from our new contract management reform.
[ Page 14901 ]
Our government has worked with five ministries to integrate contract management and ensure that the best value for the taxpayers' dollar, which may come from many ministries going into one agency, is done within a series of Treasury Board guidelines. That will be put in place next year.
I might just take a moment here to indicate to the House the general guidelines for evaluation throughout the ministry. All of the programs in our ministry are subject to evaluation, and that evaluation involves the systematic and objective examination of a program to ensure that it meets specific goals and objectives as well as the ministry's overall strategic plan. We have just recently made our strategic plan public. We have a program evaluation policy, and that's an integral part of the planning, implementation and ongoing delivery of ministry programs. The evaluation plans for each service area are outlined in this document that I just showed you, which is the program inventory and evaluation framework. Those frameworks outline how each program is being considered for ongoing monitoring and evaluation.
Contract management also incorporates monitoring and evaluation in its contract monitoring framework. Increased emphasis will be provided as the contract reform process is finalized next year, as I indicated to you.
A. Warnke: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
A. Warnke: It is a pleasure for me today to welcome to the House nearly 50 grade 7 students from Lord Byng School in my constituency of Richmond-Steveston. With them are principal Reuben Chan, teacher George Seimens as well as the chaperons accompanying the students. Would the House please make them welcome.
C. Tanner: For the second time within six months I've received complaints in my constituency office about a circumstance that is apparently comparatively common, and that is non-payment of foster parents, particularly part-time foster parents, and the great deal of time taken between the time they submit their bills and the time they get payment. We have a woman on Saltspring Island who, throughout the year and during the school week, looks after a young and apparently somewhat abusive young man, and she is supposed to receive $30 a day for lodging, food, clothing, transportation, gifts, recreational payments, and that sort of thing. At the end of each month, she bills the ministry for her services. The bill is regularly based on a five-day-a-week, four-week month. Admittedly, on occasion the mother takes him away for a day or asks that he stays in care, but other than that it's a fairly regular basis they are billed on. It is now June 2, and as of today she has received a total of $63 since March. She submitted bills for $800 at the end of April and has received nothing. As of May 6, she had still not received anything, and of course May is now due for about another $800.
I wouldn't be bringing up this specific case, but I think it illustrates a case -- because it's the second one in my constituency. These foster parents, who are doing a pretty fabulous job, are apparently complaining in some numbers. This has happened so regularly that the foster mother decided to check into the system herself and found that everything was done by hand because they had to verify all sorts of things, such as doing audit checks on all sorts of submissions of bills. I don't know what her authority is for saying this, but she felt that it could have been done a lot easier.
One of the things was that she actually visited a ministry office in Victoria and asked for the cheque. She was told it had already been sent by courier, and yet no courier has ever arrived with an envelope, and they wouldn't tell the name of the courier. A member of ministry staff admitted that she was the third complainant he had encountered that week, so there is obviously a problem within the ministry. The complainant says that since each month this involves a certain amount, she suggests that maybe the ministry could make some sort of regular payment and then investigate the odds and differences of each month -- but make some sort of regular payment just to help these people.
[11:45]
To illustrate the case -- and I don't want to get into it in too much detail -- this complainant is looking after a young man who is very much overweight, and he apparently has some personal problems. His previous foster parents gave up on him. This woman is trying, but after a great deal of attempting to make the system work both for the benefit of the foster child and for the system, she is now $1,600 out of pocket, and she takes all sorts of abuse from this young man as well. It seems to me that not only is the ministry not supporting this woman, who needs the help, but also with a bit of foresight and maybe a little discretion on the part of some of the people who are dispensing the funds, you could probably resolve this problem.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The hon. member makes some excellent points, and I would be happy to investigate the particular circumstances of the case as quickly as possible. I have just a couple of general comments, though, in reply to his concerns.
Yes, indeed, the system was manual. As it is the 1990s, there should not be a manual system when we know that each and every year we're going to have to take care of thousands of children, and that we rely on our foster parent system to provide that very valuable service. I was talking about this in estimates, saying that we are switching over to an automated system as we speak. It is called the SWS MIS system -- the social work services management information systems. What you ask for will be implemented very shortly, which is an automated payment system that can do what you ask.
I have concerns about foster parents who fall through the cracks, so to speak, on the basis of our manual system, and we are therefore investing in technology to change that. In any given year, our ministry is responsible for ensuring that a foster parenting system is in place for at least 3,500 children. The system is large, broad and complex, and deserves the attention that you indicate is needed. It was one of the major, steep learning curves that I had to engage upon: to learn the complexities, the value and the expertise provided through the foster parent system. We have increased our protocol arrangements and discussions with the B.C. foster parents' association, so that the expertise they gain each and every day in caring for children in our responsibility is communicated to us, and we can make rules that are consistent and fair not only for the foster parents but also for the children who are in care.
I met with the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations just this weekend at their annual general meeting. A dedicated bunch like that I've never seen before. It's wonderful, the services they provide. Our children would be at risk --
[ Page 14902 ]
our whole province would be at risk, if you ask me; our communities would be at risk -- without the foster parents' association. We take our responsibility in this very seriously. I'll look into your individual situation, but rest assured that we are moving forward in the general application of the changes suggested.
C. Tanner: Madam Chairman, through you to the minister, I appreciate her candour right from the word go, when she said that this was one of her steepest learning curves when she got into this job. I think this House would benefit from more candour like that from both sides of the House, and I appreciate that she's really trying to find a solution.
There are three other things related to this that I would ask her to think about. One is that this might be an illustration of pushing more discretion down the line. I know you've got your manuals and policies and things like that, but I suspect that those people on the front lines of your ministry understand those situations better than anybody else in the ministry, and if there is some way that you can give them some discretion, I suspect that it would work. I believe that that should happen in all of government. But I believe that in this case, when that woman met one of your officers, met that particular employee -- I believe it was a man in this case -- if he'd had some discretion, he might have been able to deal with it a little easier. That's number one.
Number two is that this problem is probably exacerbated by the fact that she came from a slightly isolated community. It's not isolated compared to the rest of British Columbia, but Saltspring is a little bit more isolated and a little bit more difficult than some other parts. But that would be particularly true if it was taking place north of Prince George, or somewhere like that. I wonder if we have something of a double standard in the ministry outside of Vancouver and the bigger areas.
The third thing.... Unless I missed it, I didn't hear the minister say, as a result of this person's suggestion, that maybe you can give a basic dispensation each month and then sort out the details of verification of some of the expenses later on, just to give them something to go on with. Because in this particular case, $1,600 out of pocket, I suspect, is quite a burden.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There's no question that families and children in the province will benefit when there's flexibility at the community level to meet the needs of both families and children. That's part of our implementation process with the new Child, Family and Community Service Act. But it's also an area where I know Judge Thomas Gove is applying his expertise in his public inquiry into the death of Matthew Vaudreuil. He'll be reporting out on that issue very shortly, and I very much look forward to those recommendations in that area.
Let me just.... While I absolutely accept the premise that a foster parent should never be out of pocket in terms of raising and protecting a child, there are difficulties that we have to manage in terms of our payment system: children who leave the foster home, perhaps not through any dealings with the foster parent -- but the child running away, etc. We do have to make sure that the system doesn't allow for an overpayment of tax dollars that need to be recouped later on.
But let me assure you that the new system, which may take care of the problems that this foster parent finds himself in, will be automated to the extent that there will be a cheque issued immediately. It won't be a matter of back-paying; it will be a matter of paying up front. That will go some way to alleviating the concerns.
L. Fox: I have one question that might develop into a series. I think the minister is well aware of the initiatives taken by the dentists in the Prince George region, where they withdrew services from their Social Services clients because of failure to negotiate an agreement. The last agreement they had was signed in 1990 for the year 1991. While this correspondence goes back a few months, my question is: what is the status of the negotiations today? That would be my first question.
Hon. J. MacPhail: We are in the process of negotiating. We have been negotiating at length with the dentists in the province to renew an agreement that expired in 1992, just a little under three years ago, to increase the fees for dentists who provide services to children and families who rely on income assistance. Just to put that in perspective, the budget for dental services for children of families on welfare is about $35 million per year. It's a substantial amount of money, but services are very necessary. It's an investment in children's and families' health -- no question about it.
Our last offer was rejected -- fairly vociferously, I might add -- by the dentists. It was an offer of 5.5 percent over a period of just under three years. That's an offer that exceeds what other health care practitioners have been offered and have accepted in the province.
By the way, I'm hopeful that we will reach a settlement. We are asking the dentists to return to the negotiating table. I'm hopeful we will be able to conclude this matter. One of the difficulties we are running into, as the hon. members opposite know, is that the fees for doctors, for instance, are not set arbitrarily by one side or the other. There is an agreed-upon fee schedule that becomes "the fee schedule." That isn't true of dental services. The dental profession itself sets its own fees and publishes them. There's no government influence or even market influence, I would suggest, on the setting of those fees. It's a complex set of negotiations, in that the dentists hold a fee schedule that isn't by anybody's agreement except their own.
We know the importance of the provision of those services, and are working very hard to get a settlement. In the meantime, I would like to reassure the hon. member that if a person on income assistance in his particular area is having trouble because of the dentists' withdrawal of services for income assistance clients, our area offices are working to find alternative services. I hope that doesn't go on for very long, though.
L. Fox: Just one follow-up question: I guess I'd like to get some clarification of what alternative services means, because I'm concerned. One of the reasons why I asked the question is that I've seen a situation before where patients on social services went to see an opted-out doctor. The alternative was to send that individual to Alberta at substantial cost, versus the $42 opted-out fee. I'm hoping that the alternative isn't to send individuals out of the community but perhaps to find an alternative dentist, one that would bill, so that we can keep our costs down in terms of providing adequate service.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I agree. I just checked into this yesterday to ensure that there are alternative services available
[ Page 14903 ]
within the Prince George community. Indeed that is the case. There are still in every community -- and there are very few communities, actually, where dentists are withdrawing their services.... But in every community, there are alternative dental services available within that community.
V. Anderson: We would look at homemaker services. Could the minister indicate the number of persons who are providing homemaker services, the cost of these services and what arrangements are being made for that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll be able to answer that question only from the point of view of how many dollars we invest in homemaker services. The service is, of course, delivered through contracted agencies throughout the province, and it varies from year to year. It's a daily service that we invest in, depending on the demand. Last year we spent $4.1 million on homemaker services.
[12:00]
V. Anderson: What kind of evaluation or supervision is undertaken? Because homemaker services is an area that in our constituency office we're getting a lot of complaints about. We're getting them from persons with handicaps who have not been satisfied with the service; we've been getting them from seniors who are having difficulty with the service; we've been getting them from families with children and families where there is one handicapped member. We have been consistently getting quite a number of complaints.
Is there a process whereby those complaints are followed up and dealt with? I'm sure our area is not unique in this regard, because we've heard it from other areas as well. It's a very valuable and meaningful service when it's working well, but it's not a good service when it's not working as well as it could.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I would just give general advice for the use of the hon. member's constituents: that if they're not happy with the services, please come back to the district office of our ministry, which is where the original arrangement would have been made through a contracted agency. If a client is not satisfied with the contracted agency service, I urge the hon. member to please advise his constituent, who would be our client, to come back to the district office from which the arrangement originated.
We do a regular evaluation and audit the services as well, as I've described previously, and that would be done at the local level. However, it is an area we know we have to keep a very close eye on and at the same time allow the flexibility of the service to be delivered through agencies at the local level, because we're not....
I know the hon. member isn't confusing this with home support services through the Ministry of Health. Our homemaker services are delivered mainly through the family and children's services division, to ensure that a child can stay in a home or a parent receives the assistance she needs in order to keep her children with her. Last year we had 135 contracts. So we know that it's a diverse and thinly spread system and therefore requires close monitoring, and we do do that.
V. Anderson: If I understand correctly, or maybe I didn't hear right on this from the minister.... Are these homemaker services only where there are children in the home? Or are the services for adults who have special needs, where there are no children in the home? If so, what would be the eligibility for those where there are no children in the home?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, I'll go through what kind of services are provided. About 60 percent of the services are provided through family and children's services: parenting support and homemaker support to maintain the family. However, there are also services to families where there's a person with a mental handicap: respite services, homemaker services, etc. Also, there are additional services to people who are on income assistance in circumstances where they're bedridden and have no other support. Maybe they would have to stay in hospital longer, but we bring them home and give them homemaker support, and we pay for it, because they're on income assistance.
V. Anderson: One of the areas of concern that I have concerning people with language and other kinds of handicaps -- people from a variety of cultural backgrounds -- is that they have a worker from another cultural background. That is not in itself a problem, except that they can't understand each other languagewise. The nature of communication on one side or the other -- it works on both sides -- is a difficulty. When persons have raised this as a problem, they've been told that because of equity, there cannot be anything done about this. It isn't that it's Caucasian or non-Caucasian, because it could be that the person being cared for has a language problem, and the person coming in.... They could both be multicultural persons. It's a question of effective communication in order that the help given is effective rather than frustrating. I'm wondering if there's a way.... I highlight that because it is a growing concern, and we get it more often now than we did previously.
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is an issue that we face. I'm pleased to report that it is a priority for us to provide culturally appropriate services. It begins with training our own staff that arrange for the contracts to understand cultural diversity and be sensitive to the different ethnic backgrounds of our clients. I'm pleased to report that 5,000 of our staff out of a ministry of about 45,000 have received specific training in multicultural sensitivity and the appropriate delivery of services. It's an ongoing issue, though. We are increasingly trying to provide culturally appropriate services through contracted agencies. Of course, that is part of our evaluation process: to determine the agencies that can most effectively meet those needs. I'm sorry, I don't have the figures about how that is expanding, though.
V. Anderson: The minister made a distinction between home services that are given under Health and home services that come under here, and I appreciate that. Just in passing -- and it may come up later -- we have persons who were getting home-care service under Health who have recently been disqualified from that in fairly large numbers, particularly seniors. While we're here, I just wanted to highlight that and ask: when those persons are cut off homemaker services by Health, are they now able to apply to Social Services for homemaker support? At the moment, they're in very disastrous and uneven circumstances.
Hon. J. MacPhail: We had an excellent discussion with the member for Matsqui last week on this, so perhaps you can
[ Page 14904 ]
review the Hansard discussion. Just very briefly, the test for eligibility for services from my ministry is an income test. Service is based on need and income level, and the eligibility test is very clear -- and for which services. I would generally say that there is not an overlap in eligibility. I also want to say that the circumstances of a person who was getting home support services from the Ministry of Health could change, and they could be eligible for services under my ministry. But generally the eligibility tests are completely different.
V. Anderson: I would move on to the Nobody's Perfect parenting program. Could the minister comment on how many of those programs are operating? Who are they operated by? Are they contracted or provided by the ministry, and what's the budget in that program?
Hon. J. MacPhail: In 1994-95 we spent $0.27 million on the Nobody's Perfect parenting program. The programs are provided by 13 agencies throughout the province. For instance, in my constituency it is provided through the neighbourhood house system. I am sure that the House is familiar with the fact that it's an educational program for parents of children from birth to the age of five. It's a very successful program.
V. Anderson: Is there a guidebook or an outline? When you say the Nobody's Perfect program, is it a program which has a curriculum or a standard format? Or is it a program that is made up by, and is completely different with, by each contract group that does it? If so, how does the system work to evaluate the different programs?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is a core curriculum for the Nobody's Perfect program, and of course there is an information package not only for the client of the program but for the deliverers of the program as well. There's a manual. On top of that, I know that the agencies meet the core curriculum needs but that they vary it according to the specific needs of their community. There's multicultural; there are new-Canadian programs, first nations programs and young parents programs as well. The evaluation is on the basis of the success of the graduates, for lack of a better term, and the agencies monitor that. There is a provincial advisory committee on Nobody's Perfect that's interministerial and community-based, and it evaluates the programs on an annual basis.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that. Is there an intention to extend these? And might I ask: in all of these programs here, are they ones...? If a group is interested in developing that kind of program, do they simply come to the minister and ask, or is it minister-driven -- that you're trying to develop new programs? So is it driven from the ministry out or from requests coming in?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, if these were the halcyon days of being able to spend, this is a program in which I certainly would like to expand tax expenditure. Unfortunately, we have to do it within the budget available. The budgets are based on regional budgets. Certainly if a particular community, group or agency wishes to deliver a program, we would encourage them to send the proposal in to the regional director for the area. People who ask for the program, to participate in the program.... We certainly keep that request on record until the program becomes available for them to enter.
V. Anderson: Moving on, then, to the non-residential resources, could the minister explain the nature of this program, what the budget is and how many people are involved in the non-residential services?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Non-residential resources is an eclectic group of programs that we deliver in a very diverse way. We spent approximately $14.1 million on non-residential programs in 1994- 95. But it varies; the support services vary. Of course, the services are all based on delivering them in order to prevent or reduce the number of children who come into care, by assisting families to acquire the skills necessary to parents in a way that's protective of their children. Also, we know that the family is the best resource for a child. Anything we could do to support the family and make the safety of the child paramount at the same time is a good investment.
[12:15]
Some of the services -- I'll just outline them for you -- are respite resource services, the homemaker services that we've already talked about, residential living arrangements for pregnant and young moms, the parent training that we've already covered, and family advancement workers. We have parent mutual aid organizations; I know that you probably know of some of them out there. Again, we have already reviewed the family resource centres as well, but they are part of the non-residential support services.
V. Anderson: I'm assuming, then, that these are all contracted services. With the programs that we've been discussing -- and there's a whole variety of them -- what is the process for the ministry to keep in touch with supervisory staff and management? Is that done on a regional basis? Are there people who are devoted particularly to that, where it is actually their full-time job? Are there so many persons in each region who are responsible for doing this within their region? How is that system working?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It is the area manager's responsibility to negotiate the contracts, and to monitor, evaluate and maintain the liaison with the contracted agencies in his or her area.
V. Anderson: Hon. Chair, I understand that by agreement we are going to stop at 12:15 p.m. I would make the appropriate motion that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's the end of a long week, and a lot of good business was done. I move that the House adjourn.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:17 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]